Forums Home Forum Rules Achaea.com Lore Wiki Vote for Achaea! IronRealms.com
Home› Everything Achaea› The Golden Dais of Creation

The Big Ship Thread

245

Comments

  • AnariaAnaria
    edited June 2017
    Bann said:
    @Anaria - That can be addressed by making it so you can't dock within x amount of time after engaging in combat. Easy fix.
    This issue has been discussed and debated to great extent within the Mariner's Guild. That solution carries with it several negative side effects. It would not be fair for the pirates, and it would not be fair for those who chose to fight back. A better solution would be to remove shipwarning functionality for docked ships. This was actually suggested during the seafaring classleads (though not by me). This idea is not without its detractors however.

  • KryptonKrypton shi-Khurena
    I censured it because it is a terrible idea.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USA
    It is a terrible Idea. Generally, I only attack ships coming into harbour when I'm too busy OOC to do a full sailing route, but i can watch the screen off and on. It has more to do with me having a life and less to do with me wanting to surprise ships. I sail pretty often when I can to look for ships. If I was doing only a surprise tactic, you know how I'd watch harbour with shipwarning blocked for docked ships? I'd just sit far enough out of harbour for you not to see me. I'd see you as soon as you left port and would cloak. You'd not see me positioning my ship because... you'd be docked and wouldn't have shipwarning. It's a terrible idea, and it's perpetuated by wanting an easy fix without thinking through the problems.
    image
  • ShimiShimi
    Alternately if the two ideas WERE put in place the two biggest trading ports could be considered immune. First I would presume Captain Maelstrom and his dockhands are there for a reason and THEY would hold Thraasi and Tasur'ke. Second I don't think it gives incentive to pirates to sit in harbour, not anymore than they already do. As Jinsun said, he's got a life. Second it would give Navy's a purpose in holding their own ports, and a viable means of city-state warfare for those who want to stay relevant at sea, and or a new means to raid. Which as there is already plenty of raiding I am sure people will poop on that idea. But if there is also a floating city-state only accessible via sailing (I picture as akin to Parthren Gare but armed to the teeth and accessible by ship) that is run through harbour fees and excess goods being traded in to it, which it then trades into other harbours.. it would behoove an organization such as PoM or Mariners or even one of the Navy's to attempt control of it for profits boosts to their own controlled harbors. I think it's a brilliant idea that will spur fun conflict and boost trade, it could also be where you trade in those odds and ends that develops throughout your route. The caveat being if your faction holds it you get back full price. If a different faction holds it you get back half. And you can't know until you dock who has it. That way you have incentive to TRY.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USA
    Add to the list of problems, failing a wavecall does nothing, and still zaps your endurance to 0. That's dumb.
    image
  • NazihkNazihk
    The biggest problem I have with Seafaring is that crewing on a ship is SO GODDAMN BORING. If there's no combat your entire job is to sit there and not be AFK, so that you can respond if there is combat. If there IS combat, your job is largely summed up by the phrase "LOAD WEAPON WITH <ammo> DIPPED|FIRE WEAPON [AT <target>]", with a side of damage control if the crew isn't large enough to have a dedicated repairman. Nobody wants to crew a ship because of that, especially on something like a trading run which would ideally be an hour or so of sailing with literally no action.

    I wouldn't have a problem with ships needing relatively large crews if those crews actually had things to do and the job was at all interesting, but not when they only real purpose of the crewing requirements is to increase the amount of players involved with it.

    I'd honestly rather see NPC gunners or something and the player requirements reduced to a captain and somebody to play crewchief.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USA
    Really, a lot of the fun in sailing is just stuff you do with your crews. The hard part is getting crews that aren't totally ego stacked and want to just have a good time.
    image
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USA
    Problem: Add limits on free harbours to the list. I dunno if we need to just have a month limit you can be there, or what, but now no one can stop at New Hope and I knew it was a problem in Zaphar for a long while.
    image
  • KyrraKyrra Australia
    You need to be on board a ship for that, no?
    (D.M.A.): Cooper says, "Kyrra is either the most innocent person in the world, or the girl who uses the most innuendo seemingly unintentionally but really on purpose."

  • KryptonKrypton shi-Khurena
    Yeah, the <ship shortname/ID#> idea is to allow un-Captain-ing yourself without boarding, because if an owner goes dormant after drydocking, you're SOL.
  • KlendathuKlendathu Eye of the Storm
    Krypton said:
    Problem: My ship list and fleetsense are cluttered with captain perms I can't self-remove because they are Drydocked by Owner.

    Solution: SHIP CAPTAIN REMOVE <me> <ship shortname>

    Related: Holding positions of authority in multiple organisations means I have a lot of returns on my fleetsense, how about allowing an argument to the fleetsense command to filter by org / captain?

    Tharos, the Announcer of Delos shouts, "It's near the end of the egghunt and I still haven't figured out how to pronounce Clean-dat-hoo."
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USA
    New Idea: Mounted spyglass ship artefacts!

    image
  • SkyeSkye The Duchess Bellatere
    edited June 2017
    There needs to be a fix to let you forcibly assume captaincy in an emergency.

    On occasion, when you d/c or lag out, the game doesn't recognise that you've d/ced and you're still standing there with a deathgrip on the captaincy. As a result, the rest of your crew are basically forced into whatever doom your disconnected body is steering them towards.

    If the captain is not the owner of the ship and the owner is present on board, then this can be circumvented, but if the owner is the one d/cing then everyone is boned.

    Quite possibly allow a special temporary emergency powers appointment before you cast off and will only last for as long as the appointed person is on board.


  • KryptonKrypton shi-Khurena
    Anyone with captain perms can still SHIP APPOINT <me/person> CAPTAIN even with the current captain aboard.
  • TysandrTysandr
    Nazihk said:
    The biggest problem I have with Seafaring is that crewing on a ship is SO GODDAMN BORING. If there's no combat your entire job is to sit there and not be AFK, so that you can respond if there is combat. If there IS combat, your job is largely summed up by the phrase "LOAD WEAPON WITH <ammo> DIPPED|FIRE WEAPON [AT <target>]", with a side of damage control if the crew isn't large enough to have a dedicated repairman. Nobody wants to crew a ship because of that, especially on something like a trading run which would ideally be an hour or so of sailing with literally no action.

    I wouldn't have a problem with ships needing relatively large crews if those crews actually had things to do and the job was at all interesting, but not when they only real purpose of the crewing requirements is to increase the amount of players involved with it.

    I'd honestly rather see NPC gunners or something and the player requirements reduced to a captain and somebody to play crewchief.
    Starmourne probably designed around crewing ships.
    "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

  • SkyeSkye The Duchess Bellatere
    edited June 2017
    what really? I think I tried and they kept saying like NO THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO RELINQUISH or something.


  • KryptonKrypton shi-Khurena
    ASSUME, yes -- APPOINT, no.
  • SkyeSkye The Duchess Bellatere
    That is extremely unintuitive and counter productive. If you can bypass the requirement to agree by using appoint, then why bother requiring agreement to assume?


  • KryptonKrypton shi-Khurena
    There's nothing sensible about it. Probably just a relic from seafaring code changes.
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USA
    I always use appoint though I always thought only owners could appoint 
    image
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USA
    Ohh what if we could get cargo during deep sea diving?
    image
  • GreysGreys
    @Jinsun tricky, either that cargo can show up when sounding and can be retrieved via salvage ops?
  • JinsunJinsun TN, USA
    Alrena said:
    Personally, I'd like to see the cost of being sunk reduced so people would feel more safe to go out and get in there. More people on the seas is more fun! 
    I've said this many, many times.
    image
  • KryptonKrypton shi-Khurena
    Hasn't the cost already been reduced? Can't lose a single crew member if you have enough tokens; ALL harbours can salvage to minimize distance cost.
  • GreysGreys
    Personally, rather the rewards be raised just so there is more incentive to bring other people in. After all, it is a massive monetary investment and sizable maintenance costs.  I rarely salvage via harbours (usually just get a crew to perform ops) does it scale up with the ship type or not?
  • MathildaMathilda
    Not the gold cost, but the time cost. Hence my suggestion: I, personally, am willing to pay a bit more gold to not have to redo a 3-hour trade deal.
     <3 
  • KryptonKrypton shi-Khurena
    Which begs the question: Why would ever make the unfortunate decision to embark on a 3-hour trade deal?
Sign In or Register to comment.