hoarmurath Posted August 14, 2018 Posted August 14, 2018 13 hours ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said: +1 Game design wise, how to put more 10x more traders in the water than navy captains You can't, from my experience, the number of players interested by economy is far lower, and most people will be interested by combat only. Even for those doing both, most of them will do economy on a very small level, because they won't have the patience, the ships, the base money to do more. That's why you have to make it so AI activity replace the missing trader players, because you will never have enough trader players with the current game setting. 2
Wick Posted August 14, 2018 Posted August 14, 2018 The only way to promote trading (if this what we want) is to making sure, wealth comes from trading and gold is not given away for combat. This would then cause endless grief for solo PVP oriented players with no solid clan economy backing. The system we have now is a sort of middle ground trying to accommodate everyone but satisfies no-one in particular as people on both end of the scale seek more radical solutions. We have the option to trade and amassing huge fortunes is easy with trading but doing only PVP is absolutely possible and sustainable in the game setting we have now. Nothing is forced upon the players. To have a trade based economy would mean to figure out a way to only make money with trading or manufacturing (bar raiding traders for capture). Force trading players into guilds and have some sort of hard set rules how to operate them. PVP would then follow to provide protection. guilds would hire escorting groups and pay hefty fee. We would end up with WW2 style convoy warfare soon enough. For PVP the idea can be developed into Nations having a career choice for players to join the official Navy and would be provided with ships and victuals to wage war, escort or raid according to the admiralty needs like traders needing escort. Tempting... 3
admin Posted August 16, 2018 Author Posted August 16, 2018 12 hours ago, Borch said: Surrendering in last second of sinking your ship to deny attacker xp and gold was already a headache some time ago. It was done even by some respectable captains just because they could. Now with PvP marks, upgrades and such this is going to be a real pain. And no, not everyone wins. If did damage to a vessel which surrenders AFTER receiving this damage and you sink the derelict you are supposed to get a kill. You only miss marks and gold if the ship surrenders without receiving any damage - but you get the ship. This is needed to reduce quick farming on alts through quick surrenders. 2
admin Posted August 16, 2018 Author Posted August 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said: To fix farming, surrender = recently killed status. Why it takes so much basic logic to solve simple problems? too much effort was spent on various farming issues. Crew minimums, recently killed timers, etc etc etc. right now we have a more pragmatic approach than old idealistic lets fix everything immediately view ui, localization, more variety in pve content is 10X more valuable for the game than fixing someone's farming options. 9
reaperpt Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 On 8/9/2018 at 9:57 PM, admin said: Open world itself was a community proposal and it was implemented. This game was originally planned as a lobby shooter with 3 maps (check steam greenlight page). You are literally making up things. Hercules itself was proposed by community. Wasa was proposed by the community. Trading at sea was requested by the community. Are you a hater? Should I remove the hater? He is demotivating the team. Why should not you remove it? The forum is not for debating ideas? I did not see it being offensive, if you do not like people expressing your ideas, the team has to change professions in my humble opinion it seems and that you want people to buy a product and never raise questions
Sailor Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 2 hours ago, reaperpt said: Why should not you remove it? The forum is not for debating ideas? I did not see it being offensive, if you do not like people expressing your ideas, the team has to change professions in my humble opinion it seems and that you want people to buy a product and never raise questions Lies and false claims are not ideas. The statement: "developers have not implemented a single idea from the community" is a false claim/lie. This forum does not tolerate liars as lies do not contribute ANYTHING to the discussion.
reaperpt Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 it seems to me that this forum does not tolerate anything but the will of some 1
Sailor Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 12 hours ago, reaperpt said: it seems to me that this forum does not tolerate anything but the will of some Your posts and opinions prove the opposite. All opinions and ideas including critical views are not only tolerated but also welcome. But trolls, people who deliberately post false info to mislead others will get removed.
Hethwill, the Red Duke Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 Yeah, guess so. On another related point, which is intricately connected to eco.war.eco cycle ( at the expense of the no.eco.just.pvp crews ), it is "absurd" the amount of players that play this multiplayer game solo mode. That alone is a big chunk of the factor that ruled out many of the "risk" of the OW and the lobbying towards more and more and more safety was rampant. Instead of sailing with friends, give us forts. Then forts were not enough anymore. Now the zones are not enough anymore. I mean... If Fine woods would be reviewed and re.implemented then the playerbase in the Caribbean server would have to accept the fact that theirs and the enemies resource routes would be a "warzone" in itselves. But guess it is too much to expect. But we beyond that now. I am eagerly waiting for September and all the updates, hotfixes, etc.
Barbancourt Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 13 minutes ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said: On another related point, which is intricately connected to eco.war.eco cycle ( at the expense of the no.eco.just.pvp crews ), it is "absurd" the amount of players that play this multiplayer game solo mode. It's just hard for a lot of people to schedule themselves the 2/3/4/5+ hours straight it takes to do multiplayer things in NA - without life interruptions, and at the exact same time as other people in their group. A larger population would sure help a lot. I like to do group stuff, but coordinating something and feeling like I've got the free hours for following through with it is daunting. 1
Hethwill, the Red Duke Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said: It's just hard for a lot of people to schedule themselves the 2/3/4/5+ hours straight it takes to do multiplayer things in NA - without life interruptions, and at the exact same time as other people in their group. A larger population would sure help a lot. I like to do group stuff, but coordinating something and feeling like I've got the free hours for following through with it is daunting. 100% agree. One beautiful thing about NA is that, even if you take a step away for weeks, you won't be behind anyone. Try to do that in other games. One week away and suddenly the gap of "character" to your friends is huge...
Guest Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) On 6/18/2018 at 10:41 AM, admin said: Battle sails now give bonuses to Ship turning Yard turning Sail resistance @admin the intention with this is good, but as far as i can tell it didnt make any difference, you loose +/- 4 knots sailing in battle sails which makes turning in full sails still better, it only makes a difference if you have full speed then go down to battle sails quickly as you're turning. I would still suggest that going down to battle sails will decrease the amount of crew needed on the sailing part as we do now with lock one side for reload, the gunnery crew needed goes down. Also instead of going through each stage when lowering sails the sailing crew would go straight to the assigned sail type, e.g full sails to battle sails, it lowers it straight to battle sails. The difference would be that people would have more crew for cannons which gives higher dps, i would also add that the dispersion would be better and the guncrew would aim faster. It should be fairly easy explained and would make total sence, the less sail thats up = more crew available for cannons, the slower your ships goes = less affected by heel = better aim with cannons, and of course better ship, yard turning and sail resistance. Edited August 21, 2018 by Guest Waves effect more when lower speed
Angus MacDuff Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 The slower a ship goes, the more it is affected by waves 1
Angus MacDuff Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 The sailing crew requirement does not change with the level of sails showing. Changing the level of sails is what uses crew. Maneuvering with yards uses crew. If you want to be realistic, most ships in combat didn't do a lot of work with the sails when the battle had started. Brail up the courses to reduce fire risk (the historic battle sails). 3
Recommended Posts