Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Fixing avatar combat is not the problem.
yourhead
Member Posts: 78
What we want is realistic combat at sea with 1st person perspecytive from the ship. The game will continue to be boring with the silly magic buffs and crew re-gereration. The devs think that the community just wants wow at sea; not the case and this game will continue to be an un-realistic waste of time.
The world has gamers that are older than 13...when will game devs realize this?
Comments
Sadly though, to change this would require a major redesign.
I think if FLS could guarantee thousands of new subscribers as a result they might consider it?
But no-one can say this so it will never happen.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I have to agree, I nearly fell over laughing when I saw that massive PR splurge interview on fixing avatar combat. I'm not going to rehash everything that is horribly wrong or broken in PotBS, but Avatar combat was way way way down the list of things that needed fixing.
It's like some ship steward running up to the Captain of the Titanic as she is sinking and saying, 'Sir, we've replaced that dirty towel in the bathroom of state room 55B"
Totally irrelevent to why the game is sinking / has sunk and meaningless to nearly everyone.
Agree. For me the game failed to hang on to my sub because it felt too small globally, that and some really stupid city designs that felt like a freaking maze! God knows why they made it hard for players to run around a major city.
With a game like PotBS I wanted to see mass exploration, wide oceans and a chance of getting lost. What about treasure maps that dropped showing locations of loot etc? Crafting was bizarre as well.
Not sure what they need to do to bring this back to life....
I thought it was a rather good game. EVE I got lost, so I enjoyed how small PoTBS map was, it was large enough to have fun in but big enough not to get lost.
Currently restarting World of Warcraft
Oh those old discussions...
Yeah, a age of sail game in which you are emersed in the world. Trade, project power, or piracy in an unstable region. Granted that realistic sailing times would be too boring (A couple of more days 'till port. Look another ship... Be about 5 hours till we get within firing range) so that could be tweaked.
But oh well. The game is just not an emersive world, it is more of a wargame.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
It's not even really a wargame - since there is no strategic movement at all.
To explain that:
To enter a Port Battle in PotBS your character must have created some contention points for the port in question. But the game does NOT track which ship was used or the location of your ships on the map.
As an example:
Bridgetown (British) comes under contention from the French.
A French Naval Officer sails a Chasse-Maree (Light Trader) to the Bridgetown area and attacks a small British Trader earning contention points. He then returns his Chasse-Maree to Pointe-a-Pitre.
A couple of days later he is sailing a Cerberus Frigate near San-Marcos when he gets the 17 minute warning of the battle in Bridgetown...
So, he switches to a Stralsund MC Frigate in Belle Isle (at the complete other side of the Caribbean to Bridgetown!) and waits for the invite to the Port Battle which he will attend in his Stralsund...
In a wargame - there would be strategic movement required.
You want to attend the Bridgetown Port Battle in your Stralsund MC Frigate? Okay, but your Stralsund would have to be within range of that port at the time that battle was initiated - not on the other side of the world.
PotBS does not play this way at all. As a result it is reduced to a series of instanced Multiplayer skirmishes really.
It frustrates me because even 'basic' wargames like Chess get this concept. In Chess, you cannot simply bring your Queen to every fight regardless of its actual position on the board. You have to plan ahead, and your opponent has the opportunity to study your moves and attempt to deduce your plan.
While you don't want ridiculously long travel times in PotBS, the ability to move across the whole Caribbean in minutes really puts paid to it ever working as a wargame in this regard.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I stand corrected.
I can see the technical side of how this was done; a queue is formed with users for a given instanced server. However there is now reference check (database call for location (x,y)) on the large map prior to the instance starting or during the ticking of the timer of the queue. Seems that would not be difficult to make such a set of codes.
Or put a location flag (x,y) (hidden from view, or in a database table) for the player, in which the player must be within a given radius or risk being dropped from the queue.
I guess this is more with a philosophy of the game, to let players jump into the action as soon as possible with as little constraints as possible.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.